Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.

It is a bit odd that so few Government Members are offering and, likewise for Members of other parties, because in many ways the Bill goes to the heart of what politics is about and touches on some of the problems that are dogging the political system in this country and creating a situation where there is widespread disillusionment with politics as it is practised. Such disillusionment is felt right across the population but it is particularly the case among younger people, who are witnessing the kind of stuff we have heard in recent times such as the Irish Water debacle, the CRC, St. Vincent’s University Hospital and going back to the Kevin Cardiff situation and the Anglo tapes. All of those cases show up this country in a bad light and hold up a mirror for us which shows the scale of the problems affecting what is supposed to be a modern democracy in this country, and the fact that we have a very long way to go to have an accountable and transparent democratic system. That in itself is very demoralising for many people and it is certainly disillusioning for many. The most concerning aspect is the sense that there is no indication that the culture will change. That underlies part of the reason so many young people have left good jobs in this country and have gone to live abroad. The big challenge for us in the future when jobs come back on-stream and the economy eventually takes off again will be to try to create the type of country that our young emigrants will want to come back to. The main thing that sickens people is the lack of accountability in this country and the fact that we still have a very healthy cronyism that permeates all aspects of life. That is such a turn-off and is so demoralising for many Irish people.

The legislation is supposed to be about introducing reform to the political system and the way in which we fund politics and there are elements to it that cannot but be welcomed. I refer to the arrangements for improved auditing of the party leader's allowance, the reduction of 10% in the allowance, provisions for inspection powers for the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, arrangements for the return of unspent moneys and other technical changes and the elimination of severance payments. However, they indicate a mere scratching of the surface. Another speaker referred to it as a box-ticking exercise for the reform of politics and the funding of politics. It is literally only to say that the task has been completed and the Government introduced the Bill when we know that what is contained in the legislation does not go anywhere near what is required in terms of restoring confidence in the political system. The Bill is exceptionally unambitious. It is really a pretence of reform. It only deals with one element of the political funding system. There is no reference to the whole question of State funding and the need to reform that area or the staffing allowances which are very much stacked in favour of the political parties. It is a far cry from the notion of any kind of democratic revolution or reform of Irish politics.

The Bill predominantly deals with the party leader's allowance, which will be renamed as the parliamentary activities allowance. That is a more accurate name. I will return to that. The party leader's allowance is costing taxpayers approximately €5.5 million per year. It has been at that rate since approximately 2008. The figure has not been reduced throughout all of the period of the recession. Everyone, across society has had to make reductions in their personal spending. Family incomes have experienced severe austerity but the reality is that there has been no austerity at all for political parties because their substantial funding has not been reduced throughout the period. I venture to suggest that it is only now at this point when the parties in government are making strenuous efforts to try to restore some respectability to their activities that they are coming up with this figleaf or pretence at some kind of reform. The basis on which we were told the party leader's allowance increased up to 2008 was that it was to keep in line with Civil Service remuneration but when it got to 2008 it remained at that level up to the present even when Civil Service remuneration was being reduced during the recession the party leader's allowances were not reduced.

The second serious problem I have with the party leader's allowance is the manner in which the weighting system operates. The weighting system remains the same. There is a weighting in place for Government Deputies and it has been reduced by 33% but that is too little. I support the proposal made by Fianna Fáil that the reduction should be increased to 50% for Government Deputies in order to reflect the huge armoury of the State in many respects as the Civil Service works with the Government in the Departments. In addition, there is a separate system of political advisers. They are paid from the public purse and in most cases get a top-up, which calls into question the mock outrage we heard in recent times about organisations such as the CRC and so many others that are paying top-ups because, in effect, many of the current Ministers pay top-ups to their advisers. A pay limit is supposed to apply to ministerial advisers and a lot of noise was made about that when the Government was formed but that has been honoured in the breach rather than in adherence to it. It is interesting to look at those figures. Many Ministers have no credibility when it comes to talking about the need for people to tighten their belts and to live within the guidelines and the rules because they have made cases for their own political staff to receive top-ups. The Government parties have the Civil Service and the whole ministerial advisory system at their disposal and for that reason it is only reasonable that there would be a stronger weighting for Government Deputies, which should be at 50%. I would be supportive of amendments in that regard.

There is huge variation in payments among Opposition Deputies. The way the system currently operates is that for each of the first ten members of a party, the party leader gets an allowance of €71,000. Even with the weighting, the allowance for each of the first ten party members who are Government Deputies is €47,680. Independents get €41,000. I do not know the justification for that other than to bolster the strength of the parties and to weaken the influence of Independent Members. Again, it is fundamentally undemocratic to have a funding system that operates in such a manner. Everyone who comes into this House is honoured to be elected by his or her constituents.

Every Member has an equal mandate and should be treated equally when it comes to supports for performing their parliamentary duties. To do otherwise is fundamentally undemocratic in my view. We have a system that does not treat Members equally. Some get an opportunity to play a fuller part than others because the House is dominated by parties.

The idea people vote for some candidates because of their party membership is nonsense. It is very far from what is on people’s minds when they cast their vote. We have seen that where in spite of a big swing against a particular party, individual candidates from the very same party have held their seats comfortably. The whole point of Independents being treated unequally is wrong and needs to be dealt with. I will be tabling amendments to that effect on Committee Stage.

There are some Members who were elected under a party banner but who, for various reasons, resigned from both their parliamentary and political party to become Independent Members. These Members, including myself and my colleague here beside me, Deputy Mathews, have been disgracefully treated in that the funding provided, in theory, to support us in our parliamentary duties and responsibilities has been withdrawn. I do not know the basis for this move or how it could stand up to any legal challenge, given all Members have an equal mandate. Why does the funding system favour certain Members while completely disregarding others?

See this speech in context